Offensive Behaviour at Football Act cave in.

[Granny Danger]

A compelling argument to sit on ones hands and just hope things get better. It's well reasoned, it's well written, well spaced and presented and in an amusingly allegorical fashion with the Liberal Democrats, utterly ineffectual and a bit whiny.

Yeah I think he's a tedious c**t too.

[Ad Lib]

A compelling argument to sit on ones hands and just hope things get better. It's well reasoned, it's well written, well spaced and presented and in an amusingly allegorical fashion with the Liberal Democrats, utterly ineffectual and a bit whiny.

At absolutely no point did I say we should "sit on our hands". I specifically identified education schemes and encouraging the governing bodies to impose penalties for bad behaviour.

[Jambomo]

It's not the responsibility of the Scottish Government to "address the problems Scottish football has". They have no more right to tell the SPFL/SFA/clubs how to deal with sectarian singing than they do to tell them what proportion of their turnover is allowed to be spent on players' wages or what the Premier-Championship playoff structure should be.

The only remit the Scottish Government has to interfere in Scottish football is where there are things that ought already and in wider society to be illegal. They can send the inspectors in to check food hygiene at the kiosks, investigate fraudulent transactions, even insist on a health and safety certificate for stadiums like they would for anywhere like the Hydro or the Aberdeen Music Hall.

But they do not have the authority or remit to tell Scottish football clubs and regulatory authorities and fans what they can and cannot sing going to or from, or while at, a game of football.

The idea that you have to have a more effective solution than a completely ineffective solution to justify getting rid of a completely ineffective solution that is additionally a violation of the civil liberties of citizens, is creepy.

Besides which, absolutely no one is suggesting that the Scottish Government should do nothing to tackle sectarianism in Scottish society. The opposition parties all support intitiatives to educate people out of bigotry and would probably applaud and support the SPFL and SFA if they decided to impose tougher penalties on clubs whose fans breached rules about behaviour in their stadiums.

But the fact that the SPFL won't do that isn't a justification for a single state action, let alone criminalising individuals. The state does not have the authority or the legitimacy to stop bigots from being bigots.

Yes it is. The problems we have in football spill over and are a larger societal problem. They reflect on Scotland as a nation. To be honest the problems we have are as much a part of the issues we have at the game so an integrated approach of government programmes/law/ governing bodies may even be a better way.

I can't multi quote on the phone but "The idea that you have to have a more effective solution than a completely ineffective solution to justify getting rid of a completely ineffective solution that is additionally a violation of the civil liberties of citizens, is creepy" is a completely ridiculous statement. I'd cut out the hyperbole if I were you.

[The_Kincardine]

Not much support for the principle of freedom of speech or expression on here.....

That's, possibly, because most people would think one should be able to go to a football match and not be abused because of your race/religion/ethnicity/gender/disability.  This, though, is a tricky one as, clearly, football fans abuse other football fans.  The issue, and why the 'The SFA should sort it out' brigade are being naive, is delimiting acceptable abuse.

 

That's an issue either for The SFA or for the legislators to deal with in the replacement act but it's a very thorny issue.

 

As for this act?  Whatever its intention, the idea that one should be convicted when no crime has been committed or proscribing behaviour because it took place at a football game as opposed to elsewhere is clearly madness.

[williemillersmoustache]

At absolutely no point did I say we should "sit on our hands". I specifically identified education schemes and encouraging the governing bodies to impose penalties for bad behaviour.

 

Which has failed at every single turn in the past. 

 

Perhaps "effectively sitting on our hands" would have been fairer. Are you suggesting a hard hitting leaflet campaign perhaps? Some T-shirts or even a TV add which will realy make it look like someone is doing something, somewhere  A new initiative with a snappy title like Committee for the Liberation and Integration of Thuggish Offenders and their Rehabilitation Into Soccer or CLITORIS for short?

 

I would agree that education would be a central pillar to eradicating bigotry but I fear that there are a number of barriers to that which is another topic for discussion.

[Ad Lib]

Yes it is. The problems we have in football spill over and are a larger societal problem. They reflect on Scotland as a nation.

This is not a justification for criminalising football fans for conduct you are not also criminalising anyone and everyone else for.

And it's not a justification for criminalising anyone either.

To be honest the problems we have are as much a part of the issues we have at the game so an integrated approach of government programmes/law/ governing bodies may even be a better way.

But criminal sanctions should have no part in that.

I can't multi quote on the phone but "The idea that you have to have a more effective solution than a completely ineffective solution to justify getting rid of a completely ineffective solution that is additionally a violation of the civil liberties of citizens, is creepy" is a completely ridiculous statement. I'd cut out the hyperbole if I were you.

No it isn't. This Act, literally, criminalises the exercise of freedom of expression where something could be considered offensive regardless of whether or not the actions pose a threat to public order. That is a grotesque interference of freedom of speech. The criminal law should be nowhere near this.

People have the right to be bigots and to sing and say what they like in public as long as they are not inciting disorder or violence. That's core to the idea of being in a liberal democracy.

[Ad Lib]

Which has failed at every single turn in the past. 

 

Perhaps "effectively sitting on our hands" would have been fairer. Are you suggesting a hard hitting leaflet campaign perhaps? Some T-shirts or even a TV add which will realy make it look like someone is doing something, somewhere  A new initiative with a snappy title like Committee for the Liberation and Integration of Thuggish Offenders and their Rehabilitation Into Soccer or CLITORIS for short?

 

I would agree that education would be a central pillar to eradicating bigotry but I fear that there are a number of barriers to that which is another topic for discussion.

Education has not been ineffective. The preponderance of sectarian singing and sectarian violence has been in consistent decline for decades, and a couple of Old Firm matches getting heated doesn't change that.

Football has to play its part in erradicating this from its stadiums, but that's their responsiblity and theirs alone, and if they don't do it, then we must accept that the Scottish Football authorities think it's fine and either put up with it or boycott games. It's your choice really.

[The_Kincardine]

So people should be able to sing about being up to their knees in catholic blood? Glorifying terrorist groups (which if it happened in the street would result in terrorism act charges?)? heads gone.

It isn't a "Stop people singing bigoted songs" Act, though.

[williemillersmoustache]

Education has not been ineffective. The preponderance of sectarian singing and sectarian violence has been in consistent decline for decades, and a couple of Old Firm matches getting heated doesn't change that.

 

I'm not interested in a decline, I want an eradication of it from football. The act if implemented effectively would achieve that, perhaps with a wee tweak here and there. 

 

You can hold hands and bang tambourines to your hearts content outside of the game but inside, it can be stamped out quickly and permanently with just a bit testicular fortitude. 

 

 

 

Football has to play its part in erradicating this from its stadiums, but that's their responsiblity and theirs alone, and if they don't do it, then we must accept that the Scottish Football authorities think it's fine and either put up with it or boycott games. It's your choice really.

 

Give up then, that's your solution. If only you could communicate this stunning strategy to your party colleagues. 

[Carl Cort's Hamstring]

So people should be able to sing about being up to their knees in catholic blood? Glorifying terrorist groups (which if it happened in the street would result in terrorism act charges?)? heads gone.

 

I don't think people should be able to sing that the referee is a "f*cking penis." As a reasonable person I find it offensive and think anyone singing it should be arrested and charged under the Act.

[AUFC90]

I don't think people should be able to sing that the referee is a "f*cking penis." As a reasonable person I find it offensive and think anyone singing it should be arrested and charged under the Act.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with singing about the referee. Its football ffs.

[Carl Cort's Hamstring]

There is absolutely nothing wrong with singing about the referee. Its football ffs.

 

Aha, we're getting somewhere! You might think that, and I might think that, but that's not what we're discussing.

 

A person commits an offence if, in relation to a regulated football match—

(e)other behaviour that a reasonable person would be likely to consider offensive.

 

A reasonable person (possibly the wife of the referee) could easily claim that such behaviour is offensive and therefore criminal.

[AUFC90]

Aha, we're getting somewhere! You might think that, and I might think that, but that's not what we're discussing.

A person commits an offence if, in relation to a regulated football match—

(e)other behaviour that a reasonable person would be likely to consider offensive.

A reasonable person (possibly the wife of the referee) could easily claim that such behaviour is offensive and therefore criminal.

That's why the law is shite. I had no idea you were being sarcastic.

[Jambomo]

This is not a justification for criminalising football fans for conduct you are not also criminalising anyone and everyone else for.

And it's not a justification for criminalising anyone either.

But criminal sanctions should have no part in that.

No it isn't. This Act, literally, criminalises the exercise of freedom of expression where something could be considered offensive regardless of whether or not the actions pose a threat to public order. That is a grotesque interference of freedom of speech. The criminal law should be nowhere near this.

People have the right to be bigots and to sing and say what they like in public as long as they are not inciting disorder or violence. That's core to the idea of being in a liberal democracy.

I have already said before that I don't think the law is any good and it's wrong.

Where I am disagreeing with you is that I do not think that it "violates civil liberties" or is "creepy" for the government to try and find some alternative. This may not be in law but as you suggest - education, working with the SFA and representatives of the game.

[The_Kincardine]

Aha, we're getting somewhere! You might think that, and I might think that, but that's not what we're discussing.

 

A person commits an offence if, in relation to a regulated football match—

(e)other behaviour that a reasonable person would be likely to consider offensive.

 

A reasonable person (possibly the wife of the referee) could easily claim that such behaviour is offensive and therefore criminal.

That isn't a true interpretation.  The Act does (sort of) categorise the areas which are seen to be offensive - religion/gender/ethnicity/race.  You're right about the 'reasonable person' bit though.

[Carl Cort's Hamstring]

I'm no great fan of WoS but I notice folk criticising the article without any explanation of why.

 

Since no-one else has answered this, I will (apologies for the Ad lib-esque legnth).

 

The first and last paragraph shows that his main issue is really with parliamentary democracy:

 

 

It must be bewildering being the SNP sometimes...before you’ve even taken your seats in the chamber all the parties you just thrashed out of sight line up to explain how you’ve been doing everything wrong.

 

That is literally the point of the opposition. "We won and they lost, they should sit down and shut the f*ck up," seems to be the underlying message.

 

He keeps going on about people who were rejected by the electorate wanting to repeal the act, while failing to acknowledge that the Tories, Labour, Lib Dems and Greens actually represent the majority of the Scottish voting public.

 

He brushes over all the criticism of the act in one sentence:

 

 

Even though largely symbolic (police can’t arrest thousands of people en masse), and despite some poor drafting and a considerable degree of obstructive hostility from the judiciary.

 

Poorly drafted, symbolic and difficult to enforce legislation is obviously not a problem for the Rev. And by 'obstructive hostility', he's referring to this:

 

Sheriff Maxwell Hendry said: “It is deeply flawed legislation. Sectarianism is a blight on Scottish football, a blight on Scottish life and there is an evil in football represented by sectarianism.

 

It seems this Act was designed to try and deal with this evil. I’m not satisfied the Crown have established that any crime has been committed and accordingly I uphold the submission of no case to answer. Do not think this means I approve in any way whatsoever with conduct which is in any way sectarian in nature.â€

 

Clearly a raging anti-SNP bigot...

 

There's also this bit:

 

 

The Lib Dems and Greens are rather harder to fathom. The latter’s manifesto pledge to abolish the Act came with no reasoning other than that the OBFA “arbitrarily criminalises football fansâ€, a definition of the word “arbitrarily†that we don’t recognise – rugby, shinty and curling fans have no history of violent bigotry in need of remedy.

 

Anyone who has ever been on trains before/after a major 6 nations game could easily give a whole list of things that could be regarded as offensive and criminal under this law, if the perpetrators were football fans and not rugby supporters.

 

If the roles were reversed, and this blog had been written by a prominent Labour blogger Wings would be tearing it to pieces. It's myopic incoherent gibberish.

Edited May 16, 2016 by Carl Cort's Hamstring

[Carl Cort's Hamstring]

That's why the law is shite. I had no idea you were being sarcastic.

 

No worries, didn't realise we were on the same side.

 

That isn't a true interpretation.  The Act does (sort of) categorise the areas which are seen to be offensive - religion/gender/ethnicity/race.  You're right about the 'reasonable person' bit though.

 

It does mention specific areas yes, but then it throws in that final clause which covers just about anything.

[Ad Lib]

So people should be able to sing about being up to their knees in catholic blood? Glorifying terrorist groups (which if it happened in the street would result in terrorism act charges?)? heads gone.

The state should let them sing about being up to their knees in Catholic blood or to glorify terrorists as long as, when doing so, they are not inciting violence or public disorder.

What owners of private premises decide people should be allowed to do on their property is their business, but as a football fan I would strongly prefer it and would encourage both clubs and governing bodies, to prohibit the singing of sectarian songs on the premises I find myself in every other Saturday.

In much the same way as I want the Glasgow University Union to throw out anyone who sings a sectarian song in the Beer Bar, and I want Scotstoun Stadium to turn down its tannoy and stop everyone within a mile radius getting earache.

I do not believe that the Scottish Government, if the GUU had, say, systematically failed to evict punters who sing sectarian songs, should have the right to criminalise singing sectarian songs in licenced premises.

[Ad Lib]

I have already said before that I don't think the law is any good and it's wrong.

Where I am disagreeing with you is that I do not think that it "violates civil liberties" or is "creepy" for the government to try and find some alternative. This may not be in law but as you suggest - education, working with the SFA and representatives of the game.

But it CLEARLY does this. It criminalises a range of exercises of freedom of expression on the grounds that someone could find it offensive. That is creepy. Really creepy.

[Jambomo]

But it CLEARLY does this. It criminalises a range of exercises of freedom of expression on the grounds that someone could find it offensive. That is creepy. Really creepy.

Finding a more suitable alternative to a bad law that they want to repeal is "really creepy"??